ArticleAMB Express2016
Automation of antimicrobial activity screening.
Article in AMB Express, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Differential Fungal Susceptibility ofSensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- An innovative high-throughput genome releaser for rapid and efficient PCR screening.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Biological Activity of Natural Compounds: Current Trends and Methods.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Antimicrobial Activity and Degradation Ability Study on Nanoparticle-Enriched Formulations Specially Designed for the Neutralization of Real and Simulated Biological and Chemical Warfare Agents.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Automation of antimicrobial activity screening.AMB Express · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Manual and automated methods were compared for routine screening of compounds for antimicrobial activity. Automation generally accelerated assays and required less user intervention while producing comparable results. Automated protocols were validated for planktonic, biofilm, and agar cultures of the oral microbe Streptococcus mutans that is commonly associated with tooth decay. Toxicity assays for the known antimicrobial compound cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) were validated against planktonic, biofilm forming, and 24 h biofilm culture conditions, and several commonly reported toxicity/antimicrobial activity measures were evaluated: the 50 % inhibitory concentration (IC50), the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), and the minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC). Using automated methods, three halide salts of cetylpyridinium (CPC, CPB, CPI) were rapidly screened with no detectable effect of the counter ion on antimicrobial activity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.